AtheOS Fork Brings BeOS on Top of Linux

Eugenia writes: "Yup, Bill Hayden has forked AtheOS by using its app_server and Interface Kit (along with some other of its kits, like the filesystem layer) and ported it on top of the 2.4.x Linux kernel, without the need for X11. He already has the graphical environment working, and he also has some BeOS apps recompiled and working under Linux. Why BeOS applications? Because that was the reason of the fork. Exactly because AtheOS and BeOS have similar technical principles (highly multithreaded, truly preemptive, similar C++ API etc), by modifying AtheOS's API to match BeOS, Bill is trying to resurrect the BeOS. By doing so this way, Bill is already way ahead from the other two efforts to ressurect BeOS, OpenBeOS (dependant on the 'clean' NewOS kernel) and BlueOS (which depends on Linux and X11)."

Comments

'Way ahead'?

[tswinzig]

That depends on how you define 'way ahead.'

People like me who really like BeOS admire the entire structure of the operating system, from top to bottom. I have zero interest in running FrankensteinBeOS, which is what this sounds like. Therefore I am content to work on the OpenBeOS project, which may be 'way behind', but should have a nicer outcome (for people who like BeOS). The project is coming together quite nicely for something so young.

(It's easier to see really far when you can stand on the shoulders of great engineers.)

Copy of the message

[benmhall]

Originally found on:

http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=8 21 5112&list=2311

FROM: Bill Hayden
DATE: 03/26/2002 06:59:50
SUBJECT: [Atheos-developer] Atheos Fork Announcement

Well, it was not my intent to announce this quite this soon, but given
the recent conversation on the list, I feel that it's best not to wait
any longer.

I forked Atheos about 6 months ago and have been continuously developing
it since that time. I've taken it in some very new directions. I
should warn you that some of you will absolutely love the changes, and
some of you will perhaps feel that the "dream" of Atheos has been sold out.

The new project has had a name since the beginning, but I'm going to
hold off on releasing that until I can verify that the domain names and
trademark are secure. So I'll call it "New Atheos" for the purposes of
this e-mail.

New Atheos has the following major new features:
o Runs on top of the Linux kernel, not the Atheos kernel
o Atheos API has been merged with the BeOS API
o PowerPC support
o gcc 3.0.X compatiblity
o OpenTracker/Deskbar desktop manager

These features give the following benefits:
o Most BeOS programs compile and run with little or no changes
o Linux kernel means that CD-ROM, CD booting and installing, DHCP, etc.
work
o Linux kernel means that driver support is excellent
o Mac users get a piece of the action

Things I haven't even started on:
o Printing
o Media Kit
o Replicants

Existing Atheos programs will need changes to compile. I haven't found
one that took me longer than a few minutes to "convert". Where Atheos
and BeOS use different semantics, I chose the BeOS method.

I am going to hold off on a release until I can successfully compile and
run OpenTracker and Deskbar. They use just about every obsolete and
goofy BeOS construct that exists. I'm most of the way there, though,
especially for Deskbar. Kurt wasn't lying when he said it would be a
nightmare to port them. Of course, I'm doing an "anti-port". When some
BeOS program won't compile, I change the API to match it instead of
changing the program itself.

The first BeOS program that successfully came up was Pulse, and there
was no small amoung of satisfaction to see good ole' Pulse running on my
new system. Nostalgic BeOS users can perhaps understand.

I'm writing in a hurry, so hopefully I haven't forgotten something
important. And no, I can't give a release date yet. I hope to have a
CVS server up at the time of release.

Thanks,
Bill Hayden

Re:Copy of the message

[CrosseyedPainless]

Here's how I read this:

After evangelizing the hell out of his baby, the developer
has completely lost interest in the project. He has
totally abandoned all the people who became interested
and contributed code, and furthermore,
his ground rules say that no one else can touch his
core code.

One of these people said, "Enough!", took the code as he
has *every* right to, and made his *own* project out of it,
leaving the original project firmly and safely (albeit very
lonely) in the hands of the original developer.

It is somewhat of a misnomer to call this process "forking";
the new project is completely different from the base code.
Different in implementation, different in goals.

You feel old on Slashdot? I remember when anonymity
wasn't just for trolls and crapflooders. You really
don't have a clue in my book.

Re:Copy of the message

[EricLivingston]

Is that what open source is coming to? Don't we have any respect anymore for the people that innovate? If open source development continues to be a race to see who can stab the other person in the back and take credit for his/her work it WILL NOT improve quality.

The people who say "that's how the GPL is designed to work" really don't have a clue in my book.

I think it's extremely sad you feel that way. I feel exactly the opposite - events like this are what breath life into OSS and stand as shining examples of the power and strength of the GPL. That an individual can stand on the shoulders of great achievers and reach even higher ground, fully supported both legally and morally in an environment of innovation and creativity is incredible and should serve as both a warning and an example to companies mired in the morass of IP lawsuits and closed source development.

This is darwinism at its finest - survival of the fittest ideas in operating system design and implementation. What we are witnessing here is pure evolution of thought and concept.

Consider if natural evolution had the "attitude" you seem to espouse - what if the first organism to "figure out" replicating DNA had a lock on it, with "Mother Nature" prohibiting other organisms from taking the idea and running with it because it would "stab the other [protozoa] in the back"? Or worse, because the original organism "closed sourced" it and retained IP rights to it :) We wouldn't be here arguing about it, anyway...

I say - Great Job Bill! This is what the GPL and OSS are all about. Let's see what he puts together and consider it valuable intellectual research and contribution into the world of OSS OSs. May the fittest concepts prevail in the end.

How close will it come to BeOS?

[Ryu2]

Wasn't one of the touted features of BeOS its low latency, single-user kernel optimized for multimedia stuff? Demos had multiple video players all playing smoothly, while 3-D animations occured in other windows.

How well can the Linux kernel deliver such performance?

Re:How close will it come to BeOS?

[be-fan]

Back when people used BeOS, Linux couldn't deliver that kind of performance. Linux users were trudging along with 200ms latencies and ext2 while BeOS users laughed at them from their journaled-filesystem, ultra-low latency machines. In a short period of time, Linux has come an extremely long way to becoming a kick-ass workstation kernel. In fact, it has even eclipsed BeOS in latency, filesystem, VM, etc. The only place where BeOS still has the advantage is in userspace, where BeOS totally whips GNOME and KDE in terms of speed, ease-of-use, simplicity, consistancy, etc. Apparently, this fork tries to take the best ideas from both sides.

Re:How close will it come to BeOS?

[Adnans]

So can you open 42 versions of the same .avi movie on your Linux Desktop and play them simultaneously without dropped frames while surfing the internet on a PII450?

Yes! Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't have a PII450. BTW, most of those "cool" demos of BeOS running tens of player windows are done with a single avi (worthless to to test the real I/O), very low resolution, and without sound.

Not to diss Linux or anything, but I don't think it is time to proclaim Linux has eclipsed Be's technology.

You're right, that time has come and passed us! I'm playing 9 *different* avi's now (served over 100Mbit NFS btw), 3 mp3's *backwards* (haha, another stupid benchmark thrown in :), with xawtv in a corner, and typing this message in mozilla 0.9.9, and I still have CPU cycles to spare! Linux rocks ;-)

-adnans (ex-BeOS user)

new name!

[Arctic Fox]

that's GnuBe/Linux to you sir....

Re:Kurt is not pleased

[Danse]

Which is exactly why things such as this split happen, and should happen. He can do what he likes, but if it doesn't suit enough people, they'll go elsewhere and make their own. So whether he likes it or not, this is how things should be. I'm glad to see someone doing something interesting with AtheOS.

Re:X sucks anyhow

[Arandir]

Right now I am running XFree86-4.2.0 on FreeBSD-4.5. I have to interact with a Solaris-8 box. With X, I am able to run Clearcase, Rational Rose, Framemaker, etc. under FreeBSD. That's awesome.

If all you're doing is running some game under Wine under Linux on a standalone box in your dorm, then you don't really need X. But the rest of us appreciate the power and simplicity that is X.